Voightlander Bessa I

One of my favourite things to do is to browse round flea markets and junk shops, and I’m always on the lookout for old cameras. Last week, we visited a 1940s recreation weekend at Wimpole Hall. To be honest, I can take or leave the recreation aspects, but I wandered into one tent and spotted this little beauty – a Voightlander Bessa I, circa early 1950s.

bessa

If you’ve read any of my previous posts, you will know that the camera that made me fall in love with film photography was a Voightlander Vito, so I knew that this could be something pretty special. However, I know that bellows cameras are notorious for all kinds of problems such as leaking light, however I picked it up and had a quick look and the bellows seemed fine. I’ve also picked up enough knowledge to test out the shutter speeds out and they all seemed to be firing fine. The seller wanted £15, but I offered £10 – purely because I only had a tenner on me! – and they accepted, saying that they wouldn’t have gone so low but were happy to give it away because they could see that I would use it.

So I took it home, cleaned it up a bit, and worked out how to use it. However, pretty soon I noticed that the lens seemed to be full of fungus. I know that this is a bit of a problem with older cameras, so my heart sank when I saw it. I looked into repairing it myself, but I suspect that once I’d taken it apart, I’d never get it back together again. I then enquired with a camera repair firm about how much they’d cost to clean it, and they quoted £80+VAT.

Disappointed, I was getting ready either to dismantle it and accept that it’s broken anyway, or to resell it on Ebay. However, before I did either of those things, I thought I might as well run a film through it. To be honest I was resenting even wasting a £5 film on it, but I thought I’d give it a go so I took it over to Peckover House in Wisbech. When I got home, I then decided that I would try in develop it in Rodinal, which I’ve never used before but I thought as the film was probably ruined it wouldn’t matter. Anyway, here are the results below, using this 70 year old camera that I almost binned as worthless junk. Please be aware, the winding on mechanism took a bit of getting used to so I overlapped two images, and forgot to focus one..

img10022017_187img10022017_188img10022017_189img10022017_191

I then decided to take two photos with a flash on a tripod in my living room.  We’d just been to see Goodbye Christopher Robin so we tried to go for a bit of a thirties vibe..

img10022017_194img10022017_195

So, I’m really pleased with it! The fungus doesn’t seem to be too much of an issue – there’s some dust specs in the pictures but I’m not too bothered about that. I think the Bessa is a bit of a keeper. I see online that they mostly sell for around the £100 mark, and the next model up (which is identical apart from that it includes a rangefinder) sells for around £300! Not bad for something which cost me a tenner..

Advertisements

Rydal Grotto

Descend from the main stately home of Rydal Mount in the Lake District, pass through a tunnel beneath a bridge next to the flowing stream of Rydal Beck, and you will find a curious little building before a waterfall. The building was originally built in the 1668, and its main purpose becomes immediately apparent once you enter. A solitary window frames the waterfall, making it seem like you are looking upon a living painting. The building served as a retreat for artists, who could sit in the little building and paint the waterfall.

I can’t paint unfortunately, but it made a nice subject for my Semflex TLR. My wife has more talent than me so I took a picture of her as she followed in footsteps of those before her and sketched the waterfall. The light was beautiful through the window.

I almost destroyed these negatives in development, putting in only 300ml of solution rather than 500ml, thinking I was developing 35mm rather than 120. I’m glad I managed to save them.

 

img08092017_078img08092017_079

I wish it was the 60s, I wish I could be happy..

My wife and I have just returned from a week in the Lake District. The last time we went I had no real interest in photography. This time I took a box with about 6 cameras in it!

While there, we visited the Abbot Hall gallery in Kendal, where they had an exhibition entitled ‘Painting Pop’, which featured the art of the early 60s. It was very interesting – I particularly enjoyed David Hockney’s ‘The Rake’s Progress’.

I had my 1959 Voightlander round my neck while we were walking round the gallery, but I put it away as I wasn’t intending to take any photographs. At this point, a lovely gallery attendant approached me, said how much she liked my camera, and said that I should go to the end of the exhibition where there was a mock up of a 1962 living room.

Needless to say, we made full use of the opportunity, and it was nice to be able to use an era-specific camera! I think my wife particularly enjoyed wearing the Jackie O sunglasses. I’m also being annoying by taking a picture of myself in every mirror I see at the moment, but seeing a drinks cabinet filled with Babycham glasses with a mirror at the back seemed too good an opportunity to miss…

 

img007img009img016img031img032

Fun with the Minolta X700

One of the reasons I got into film photography is because I like the unexpected. I like not knowing how the pictures will come out until weeks later. I like having total control over every aspect of the camera without having any autofocus or anything like that.

When I went to Budapest a few months ago I had every intention of buying a Soviet relic such as a FED or Zorki (I still want one!). Instead, I came out with an eighties Minolta X700 SLR, which isn’t what I thought I would want. Indeed, for a while I felt like I had betrayed myself by buying a camera that has a lightmeter and features such as aperture priority mode.
I realise that this is ridiculous seeing as the camera itself probably now qualifies as an antique rather than a hi-tech piece of kit!

Anyway, I feel like I’ve made my peace with the Minolta now. It’s a nice compromise between having a fully manual camera (and you can ignore or turn off all of the help), and something that goes some way to helping you a little.

I haven’t had a chance to take many pictures recently as I’ve been writing a book and doing lots of GCSE exam marking, so I’ve strung this roll of film out for a long time. Sometimes you can get some nice surprises back when this happens.

Here’s some pictures I took in the depths of the Tate Modern a few months back. The room was very dark so it was nice to have the help of the light meter, which advised the slowest shutter speed possible. I’m pretty pleased with the results. It’s probably a cool picture more due to it being a cool artwork than because anything I’ve done, but still, I like them.

Autosave-File vom d-lab2/3 der AgfaPhoto GmbH

 

2_0200.jpg

As we walked away from the Tate Modern, we stopped at the normal tourist trap on the South Bank where the youngsters gather to show off their skateboard and BMX skills. I wanted to try and capture a sense of motion with a slow shutter speed. I’m pleased with the first one of the person on the BMX – I thought the background might come out blurred given the slow shutter speed and my shaky hands but that hasn’t happened..

 

Autosave-File vom d-lab2/3 der AgfaPhoto GmbH

 

 

Diana F+ with 35mm back – fun with double exposures

A few years back I bought my wife a Diana complete with all of the accessories. At the time I knew nothing about film and had no particular interest in it.  I now can see that it’s actually a pretty daunting camera to use if you’re not used to film. If fiddling around changing the 120 back for a 35mm back isn’t hard enough, it also has a number of other points that in my opinion make it a tough camera for any beginner to film!

  • It’s very easy to forget to take the lens cap off, as its not an SLR so the viewfinder bears no relation to what is actually going into the lens
  • For the same reason, it’s guesswork trying to work  out what is in focus
  • The camera is designed to use 120 film, so when using the 35mm there’s considerable issues with parallax error (meaning what you see in the viewfinder isn’t actually what comes out on the film).
  • The camera doesn’t stop you from taking more than one image without winding it on. Therefore it’s easy to forgot if you wound it on or not last time. I played it safe and did it anyway so had lots of blank negatives!
  • The little toggle on the back that selects between ‘Normal’ and ‘Panoramic’ mode is easily changed.

However, some of the issues are also strengths…

  • Most film cameras stop you from double exposing. The Diana lets you do it as much as you like, so it gives you creative control!
  • It’s fun not knowing what is going to come out on film (most of the time)
  • The different lenses available are a lot of fun, particularly for someone like me who doesn’t own any other lenses for any of my other cameras.

I’ve had some nice results with my Diana using 120 film (see previous posts), but this time I wanted to try out the 35mm back. My wife tried this out once before with colour film and the results ended up being very washed out and disappointing, but I read one user say that it’s much better with black and white film so I thought I’d give it a go. I used my trusty Kentmere 400 which is cheap as chips, easy to develop and doesn’t let me down.

I read somewhere online that it’s best to use the 58mm super wide angle lens to compensate for the issues with using the 35mm film, so that’s what I used on most of these shots here (I think).

First one – taken in a friend’s garden, in nice sunny conditions. Quite pleased with this. I developed and printed all of these myself in my new darkroom.

face

This was taken in the same place using the Macro lens. I’ve never used this before but am quite pleased with the results. I was trying to take a picture of the flower rather than the leaf, illustrating the problems with parallax, but still it’s quite a nice picture.

leaf - Copy

Next picture was taken using the Splitzer, a device which allows you to portion off the sections of the image that get exposed onto the film. It’s with these kinds of gadgets that the Diana really comes into its own, allowing you to experiment in ways that most film cameras forbid! Here’s an amalgamation of my wife’s face and mine together..

faces

Lastly, here’s a double exposure of a tractor on the beach at Sheringham, Norfolk. I walked around it to get the double exposure from different angles, and I’m quite pleased with the results. It printed up nicely in the darkroom too. Shame the pesky parallax issue cut off the top of the tractor but hey ho, you live and learn!tractor

 

Not bad for the first try with the Diana. I’m excited to experiment with it a bit more. If I can only get on top of that pesky parallax issue..

The Vest Pocket Kodak

Readers of my previous posts will know that I’m pretty interested in the history of photography, particularly the first efforts of companies such as Kodak to open up photography to a mass audience. I’m also fascinated by the First World War (I’m a History teacher and do self-guided tours to the battlefields of France and Belgium.) Therefore, you can imagine my geeky excitement when I saw that a book was being published called ‘The Vest Pocket Kodak & The First World War’, by Jon Cooksey

The book looks at the story of the aforementioned Vest Pocket Kodak, or VPK as it was affectionately known. Launched shortly before the First World War, the VPK folded down to about the size of an Iphone, and was designed to be carried easily about one’s person to catch the ideal snapshot, being much less bulky than other mass market cameras such as the Box Brownie. When you were ready to take a picture, the camera folded out using a bellows, and took remarkably sharp and accurate pictures for such a small camera. One version even allowed you to open up a flap and write on the film – allowing the

Image result for vest pocket kodak

photographer to ‘tag’ their pictures with details on where it was taken, date etc.

Cooksey’s book looks at how the VPK soon became the camera of choice for those soldiers travelling to France and Belgium to take part in the opening phases of the First World War. Thousands of them were tucked securely inside soldier’s pockets, allowing a greater democratization of war photography than had ever been seen before. There are many amazing photos in Cooksey’s book. One in particular I have used in many lessons on the First World War (see below).Image result for british troops shrapnel fire first world war

This picture, taken by Lieutenant Robert Money on 8th September 1914, depicts men of the Middlesex Regiment under shrapnel fire on the Signy-Signets road. Taken on a VPK, in my mind it is one of the most evocative, and disturbing images of the First World War, capturing the danger of troops caught out in the open. There is a sense of immediacy and movement in the picture that is missing from many other, more staged First World War pictures. The horse and cart on the road obviously racing towards safety, the soldier on the bottom left hunched over to protect himself, and most disturbing of all, the soldier in middle who is already hit and is running for cover, his face covered in blood. Cooksey reports that this soldier was intelligence officer Alfred Sang, who sadly later died of his injuries on 2 October 1914.

For obvious reasons, by 1915 it became a court martial offence to carry and use a VPK on the battlefield, as the army tried to control the flood of unsolicited images of the horror of the Western Front. Happily for us historians, these orders were largely ignored, even by those who were meant to enforce them. Below is another action photo, taken in 1915 by Private Frederick Fyfe of the Liverpool Scottish on his VPK during the attack on Bellewarde ridge, near Ypres. The picture is remarkable for being a real picture of a First World War battle taking place, from an unprotected position. Many such pictures were either faked (witness the endlessly reused, fake sections of the ‘Battle of the Somme’ film used in virtually every WW1 documentary and many books, and often passed off as reality), or were taken so tentatively over the parapet that they mostly show sandbags and barbed wire. In this image, the eye is drawn to the bursting artillery shells in the distance, the soldiers scrambling up towards the rise on the right (the flag was used to indicate the progress of the attack to British artillery), while corpses litter the ground. It’s no wonder that pictures such as these were banned.Image result for bellewaarde ridge photo

There are also many other, more candid photos in Cooksey’s book, such as this taken by by keen photographer Captain Colver on his VPK. Taken in May 1915, several weeks after the VPK was banned, the picture shows just how much the rules were flouted. Not only is the photographer himself risking a court martial, but second from the right is Lieutenant Colonel Charles Fox – the commanding officer of the regiment 1/5 York and Lancaster regiment.

Image result for charles fox trench

Overall, this book was a fascinating read, with some wonderful photographs. If you are interested in photography, and the First World War, you can’t go far wrong – it’s also a beautiful little volume! Only thing is, I now want a VPK…

First stab at developing and printing

So, as may have seen in my last post, I had a go at printing some pictures myself with the darkroom kit I bought but had mixed results, with the prints coming out almost completely dark, or looking like they were taken in the Crimean War (not necessarily a bad thing).

I’m quite keen to get control over the full process though, and as the kit included a development tank I thought I’d have a go. My wife and I went to Hunstanton and shot a roll of Kentmere 400, trying not to be too precious about the shots in case we ruined them. We then came home to develop them. Unfortunately at this point I realised I really needed a changing bag as nowhere in my house is completely dark during the day. I used to have one in my pinhole camera days but sold it, thinking it’d be highly unlikely for it to ever get used again. There’s a lesson there somewhere.

After looking at some solutions online, I managed to throw together a contraption of which Heath Robinson would surely have been proud. I took a couple of bin bags, cut arm holes in them, taped them together so they wouldn’t move about, and then put an old coat inside them, sticking the arms of the coat through the holes in the bin bag. I then inserted a foil lined freezer bag into the bottom. I now had a changing bag! To make doubly sure, I sat inside my wardrobe to try and keep the light out. As it was a hot day it wasn’t the most comfortable of experiences, however, as instructed, I had practiced removing the film and putting it onto the reel with a ruined film in daylight so I was able to do it relatively easily, sealing it inside the light-tight container.  I was now ready to develop!

 

I found this guide from Ilford extremely helpful in terms of helping me to decide what chemicals to buy and the basic process. I enlisted the help of my wife and our trusty utility shed/darkroom while we played around with chemicals. After around 15 minutes – success! We had our first batch of negatives.

After hanging them up on our shower curtain for a hour or so, they were dry and we were able to take them down and cut them into smaller pieces. Luckily I had bought some negative file pages to help to store them as I know dust isn’t great for negatives. Now it was just a case of printing them.

Last time, the prints didn’t really work, coming out completely black. At the time I blamed it on the chemicals (which are out of date), but after thinking about it I think I probably overexposed them, completely blasting the photographic paper with light. I also realised that the aperture was too wide and that it needed to be stopped down a lot more to reduce the light hitting the page. Once I had taken these simple steps, we soon started seeing our first proper images emerging from the chemicals. It is still a magical process to me.20170611_104200

And here are the finished articles! I am aware that I am probably making the whole process very long-winded by taking them, developing them, printing them, scanning them in, and then posting them online, but I never said the whole thing made sense. Besides, I still get a pleasure out of film that I just don’t get from digital.

 

PhotoScanPhotoScan (6)PhotoScan (5)PhotoScan (4)PhotoScan (2)

Next step? I took a lot of pictures with my Diana camera using the ‘exposed sprocket holes’ setting. I’m interested to see how they will come out..